Case 2:19-Md-02887-JAR-TJJ Document 98 Filed 12/15/20 Page 1 of 43
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ Document 98 Filed 12/15/20 Page 1 of 43 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF KANSAS IN RE: HILL’S PET NUTRITION, INC. DOG FOOD PRODUCTS LIABILITY MDL No. 2887 LITIGATION Case No. 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ This Document Relates to All Cases, Except: Diana Anja Eichorn-Burkhard v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc. et al., Case No. 19-CV- 02672- JAR-TJJ; and Bone, et al. v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-CV-02284- JAR-TJJ (cat food-related claims only. This complaint DOES apply to all dog food-related claims in the Bone complaint). PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT, PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPOINTMENT OF SETTLEMENT CLASS COUNSEL AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVES, APPROVAL TO DISSEMINATE CLASS NOTICE, APPOINTMENT OF THE SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR, AND ADOPTION OF A SCHEDULE FOR THE FINAL APPROVAL PROCESS Case 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ Document 98 Filed 12/15/20 Page 2 of 43 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 7 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY .............................................................................. 8 I. Summary of Plaintiffs’ Claims ........................................................................................... 8 II. Procedural History ............................................................................................................ 11 THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ................................................................. 14 I. Defendants Agree to Settlement Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only ........ 15 II. The Settlement Provides Substantial Monetary Relief for the Settlement Class .............. 15 III. Service Awards to the Class Representatives Will Be Paid from the Settlement Fund .................................................................................................................................. 18 IV. Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Costs and Expenses Will Be Paid from the Settlement Fund ................................................................................................................ 19 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 19 I. The Settlement Readily Meets the Standards for Preliminary Approval .......................... 19 A. The Class Representatives and Settlement Class Counsel Have Adequately Represented the Settlement Class ......................................................................... 21 B. The Settlement Was Fairly, Honestly, and Extensively Negotiated ..................... 22 C. The Relief That the Settlement Agreement Provides for the Settlement Class Is Adequate .................................................................................................. 23 1. The Costs, Risks, and Delay of Trial and Appeal ..................................... 23 2. The Effectiveness of the Proposed Method for Distributing Relief to the Settlement Class, Including the Method of Processing Settlement Class Members’ Claims .......................................................... 26 3. The Terms of the Proposed Award of Attorney’s Fees and Expenses and Service Awards .................................................................. 26 4. The Parties Have No Additional Agreement Other Than an Agreement to Address Requests for Exclusion ........................................ 28 D. The Settlement Agreement Treats Settlement Class Members Equitably 1 Case 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ Document 98 Filed 12/15/20 Page 3 of 43 Relative to Each Other .......................................................................................... 28 E. Counsel Genuinely Believe the Settlement Agreement Is Fair and Reasonable ............................................................................................................ 28 II. The Court Should Preliminarily Certify the Settlement Class and State Subclasses and Appoint Settlement Class Counsel ............................................................................. 29 A. The Settlement Class and State Subclasses Satisfy All Requirements of Rule 23(a).............................................................................................................. 31 1. The Settlement Class and State Subclasses Are Sufficiently Numerous .................................................................................................. 31 2. There Are Questions of Law and Fact Common to the Settlement Class and the State Subclasses .................................................................. 31 3. Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Typical of the Claims of the Settlement Class and the State Subclasses .................................................................. 32 4. Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Counsel Fairly and Adequately Protect the Interests of the Settlement Class and the State Subclasses ................................................................................................. 33 B. The Settlement Class and the State Subclasses Satisfy All Requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) ............................................................. 34 1. Common Legal and Factual Questions Predominate ................................ 34 2. A Class Action Is the Superior Method to Adjudicate Plaintiffs’ Claims ....................................................................................................... 35 III. The Court Should Approve the Form and Content of the Proposed Notice to the Settlement Class and State Subclasses .............................................................................. 36 PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR FINAL APPROVAL PROCEEDINGS .................................... 39 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 40 2 Case 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ Document 98 Filed 12/15/20 Page 4 of 43 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Adamson v. Bowen, 855 F.2d 668 (10th Cir. 1988) .................................................................................................. 26 Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) ...................................................................................................... 24, 27, 28 Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (2013) .............................................................................................................. 28 Barnwell v. Corr. Corp. of Am., No. 2:08-02151-JWL-DJW, slip op. (D. Kan. Feb. 12, 2009) ................................................. 20 Belote v. Rivet Software, Inc., No. 12-cv-02792-WYD-MJW, 2014 WL 3906205 (D. Colo. Aug. 11, 2014) ......................... 19 Carpenters & Joiners Welfare Fund, Universal Care Inc. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp, No. CV 04-3500 MJD/SRN, 2008 WL 4435734 (D. Minn. Sept. 30, 2008) ........................... 30 Chatelain v. Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc., 805 F. Supp. 209 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) ........................................................................................... 18 Chavez Rodriguez v. Hermes Landscaping, Inc., No. 17-2142-JWB-KGG, 2020 WL 3288059 (D. Kan. June 18, 2020) ............................ passim Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) .............................................................................................................. 24 Cook v. Niedert, 142 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................. 21 DeJulius v. New England Health Care Employees Pension Fund, 429 F.3d 935 (10th Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................. 29 Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1 (2002) ...................................................................................................................... 14 DG ex rel. Stricklin v. Devaughn, 594 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................ 25 Emig v. Am. Tobacco Co., 184 F.R.D. 379 (D. Kan. 1998) ................................................................................................ 27 Flerlage v. US Foods, Inc., No. 18-cv-02614-DDC-TJJ, 2020 WL 4673155 (D. Kan. Aug. 12, 2020) .............................. 30 3 Case 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ Document 98 Filed 12/15/20 Page 5 of 43 Garcia v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 255 F.R.D. 678 (D. Kan. 2009) ................................................................................................ 26 Gottlieb v. Wiles, 11 F.3d 1004 (10th Cir. 1993) .................................................................................................. 14 Hapka v. CareCentrix, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-02372-KGG, 2018 WL 1871449 (D. Kan. Feb. 15, 2018) ................................... 22 Harris v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., No. 15-cv-0094-PRW, 2019 WL 5846917 (W.D. Okla. July 29, 2019) .................................. 16 In re Am. Int’l Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., 689 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................................... 29 In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 830 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (S.D. Fla. 2011) ....................................................................................